Kudos, I'd just like to really highlight two of the good points you make.

First, Tesla motors is huge. When I said electric cars, I didn't mention them by name but was thinking specifically of them. They have proven that electric cars are the future and are coming quickly.

The second is as Tyson pointed out, the most important metric is energy coming into the planet compared to energy going out. Temperatures fluctuate to many other variables. Particularly if the oceans are absorbing or releasing energy, temperatures as we experience them will shift on that and muddy the perception of what's actually happening to the overall planet's energy balance and long term change. In the late 80's we started measuring the energy in and out of the atmosphere with satellites. There was an observed increase between late 80's and late 90's in the energy imbalance. That means not only was more energy coming in than going out over that time, but the excess staying in was getting higher. With increasing CO2 emissions, that is exactly what we expect. An increased overall greenhouse effect should see the energy imbalance growing quite steadily as the effect gets stronger and stronger. Now, the IPCC's fifth assessment report has the the longer term data from those same and new satellites. The data shows that since 2001 there is strong agreement that the data shows NO TREND. That doesn't mean the energy in the planet hasn't been increasing. It means the rate of extra energy coming in hasn't gone up or down statistically since 2001. It means the overall greenhouse effect has been entirely stagnant for a little more than the last decade. Things are warming, but no faster than they were ten years ago.

I hope that's not to technical, but it paints a non-catastrophic picture. It also gives a superb metric to measure climate models against going forward. The models universally are projected on a steadily accelerating greenhouse effect as CO2 emissions rise. If the measured results of the last decade continue to not reflect that much longer, we have more reassessing to do. As noted in the IPCC, the effect of water vapor and clouds to increasing temperature is poorly modelled right now. If we are lucky the uncertainty of the sign on it as feedback is resolved to find it is a negative feedback. Meaning, as things warm, more clouds appear and reflect more energy back out. As things cool, less clouds appear and more energy comes in. And yeah, that's my own hope, and it is not the majority opinion within the scientific community as represented by the IPCC. They do acknowledge it as a possibility, but a less likely one. That said, the models they base that opinion on do not match the satellite energy measurements, and that one uncertainty would explain it rather well. My fingers are still crossed. More reasons for my optimism is the IPCC projections through 2100. If you look close, the actual temperature plotted against the projections has the actual following the very coolest of projections so far. Again, that lends hope that something like water vapor is either working for us, or not as badly against us as is currently modelled.

That was absolutely fascinating -- great sift!

A few random thoughts:
-If any video has ever better demonstrated the idiom "necessity is the mother of invention", I don't know what it is.
-Castro was very very clever to anticipate the technological needs of his people and have the army print that "field guide" book that spurred on greater independent development.
-Some of the things they came up with remind me of working on my family farm. Every day is an exercise in problem solving -- how to solve problem A given a set of tools/resources B. And often the things in B don't really lend themselves towards A... So you end up hammering in a nail with a brick, or patching a friction hole in a metal pipe with a few layers of plastic from a 2 liter bottle and duct tape.
-That artist Oroza is a great combination of artist, historian, archeologist, and storyteller.
-We (the US) still have sanctions against Cuba, but I can't really say why that is warranted...

I was clear from the beginning that I came to lend a Christian voice to the sift. I enjoyed videosift and had been using it for some time before I created an account. I registered an account specifically because of the number of anti-christian videos that I was noticing were hitting the top ten. I wanted to engage with the people here over the topic of Christianity because the sift was, and primarily still is, an echo chamber for the worldview of secular humanism. That's the way the sift likes it, and the sift is intolerant of any voice which challenges that viewpoint. Period, end of story.

There's nothing wrong with my coming to represent Christ, here. Have I utterly failed to do so? Yes, most definitely. However, it is up to me how I want to use this site. I have commented here almost exclusively on religious topics, either on my videos or someone elses it. Occasionally I will comment on a political video or something else, but usually only on religious topics. The point being is that, that is the way I have chosen to use this site. I don't run around and dictate to anyone else how they could or should use the sift, so why should I be singled out? I didn't cause any material harm to anyone, I wasn't off topic, I didn't flout the rules. I was on topic on the videos I commented on, and I brought a Christian viewpoint to the discussion. The sift, being inhabited primarily by atheists, agnostics and anti-theists, utterly rejects that viewpoint. It's not any different if I were to go to the comments section of any major website and say anything positive about Christianity. I would instantly get 2 to 3 comments mocking everything I said.

I stated in my post that I realized that bringing a Christian viewpoint to the sift would get me a lot of flak. I didn't always react well to that, and I acted like a jerk at times. I am sorry for that. I could have done more to build relationships here and I never put in the time. There is some truth to what you have said, that I brought the way I was treated on myself. But your rant is also a product of the simplistic and distorted lens that you view me through. I mean, you on one hand call my treatment here a persecution fantasy and on the other hand say I brought it upon myself. That's just intellectual dishonesty, pure and simply. The truth is, there was a concerted campaign to deny my participation on this site, and whatever you think the reason may be, it did happen.

As to the video, if this video was of a senior consultant from the Bush administration admitting that they systemically deceived the American people this would be #1 on the sift. You're deceiving yourself if you think that the reason this video is being suppressed is due to anything other than the ideological bent of the sift.

Well, unfortunately for the climate change agenda and regardless of what you seem to think, there will continue to be studies that find evidence for the climate warming hiatus, thus lending credence to articles like these which indicate that the climate science is not settled science. I guess it's too bad that science is not a matter of consensus and needs evidence to make its case.

Yeah, back on the TV show it made him look like all the years of drugs hadn't left him with 2 brain cells to rub together. Honestly, I was amazed that he could still sing/perform at that stage, because it really sounded like he had taken a major hit to his mental faculties...

I guess this lends credence to the idea that it is never too late to quit. He does sound a LOT better now!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Was just about to submit this but you beat me by a mere 5 hours. ;-) Really nice cover. Yes, the lyrics were a little off but, I thought Zac Brown did an otherwise good job, the tune lends itself to a country style in those sections I think.

I remember listening to this song on my Walkman in about '84. Takes me back.

@newtboy If you've heard "most Teabaggers" advocating such things, why haven't you reported them to the "authorities" for conspiring to commit a crime?

Leaving lies and absurdities aside, "advocating" something is legally different from specifically inciting someone to commit a crime, knowing that they will in fact go through with it. I guess Manson could've claimed that he was joking or something, but the court didn't think so any more that they would think that Bin Laden and the other 9-11 "masterminds" were just "advocating" without expecting anything to happen. Manson was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, not with actually murdering anyone. "Most" Teabaggers aren't conspiring to kill anyone.
Like the head of a criminal organization "conspiring"* or ordering a subordinate to go take someone out, a lot depends on the relationship between the instigator and the one who does the deed -- which is not the same as "advocating" generally or to random people to do some criminal activity in the abstract. So, yeah.. why, indeed, would they get such a "bad rep?"
As for Manson getting a "bad rep?"
It's a mystery dude, a total mystery.


*The charge does not require actually committing any crime (other than conspiring) of going through with it. That's why law enforcement likes entrapment so much: because they can make arrests by instigating people to plot a crime. It's like hiring an undercover cop pretending to be a prostitute. No actual crime was committed, but the intention to commit a crime itself is considered a crime. But, to be sure, there's some degree of "mind reading" involved in the charge of conspiracy, as the law implies the assumption of intent. The charge, then, lends itself to false accusations (and convictions) too. (Apparently social media is inundated with agents trying to get people to agree to crimes so that they can get arrested and prosecuted for conspiring. Of course, nobody trolls videosift for legal advice.)

The Basel 3 accords are essentially doing this. Basel and its previous incarnations are essentially non-binding guidelines established by an international agency for banks that domestic regulatory agencies in countries then enact. Even if they don't, banks follow these anyway because it's effectively an international standard.

Basel 2 (which we had prior to the GFC), had 2 tiers of capital that could be held. The actual shareholder stock capital that is rock solid (tier 1) and various loose definitions (including at the time AAA rated mortage backed securities) - tier 2. The last I heard, that 2nd tier has essentially been done away with and the overall capital requirements (%) required to be held, has been raised.

The problems though are:

1 - Unless you raise capital to stupendous levels (like seriously inhibiting bank lending), you wouldn't have anywhere near the buffer to prevent another 2008. The problem then was not insufficient capital. It's that the industry as a whole made a large judgement error in valuing mortgage backed securities.

2 - This also highlights the problem that breaking up the banks wouldn't solve the issue of groupthink because availability of credit and economic conditions are a universal thing. An analogy is the oil price. Even though the US is a major oil producer in it's own right, events like Iraq recently still heavily impact prices in the US because global prices don't change in a vacuum.

3 - As far Glass Steigel, even if investment and traditional banks were separate, operating in the same field, if credit dries up (say because a investment bank made a bad decision), that will still affect the traditional merchant banks.

All banks work through fractional lending. You take a deposit, keep a buffer for capital. You lend out the rest. Some returns back as a deposit, again you keep a buffer and lend out the rest. In bad economic conditions, regardless of whether caused by them or other players in the finance industry, some of their lenders default and there is potential for their entire capital buffer to collapse and the bank to default if the crisis is bad enough. Even if it's purely a merchant bank.

-

What splitting the banks probably would do is increase competition, and lower banking costs as well as salaries, which is generally a good thing and I would agree here that this is something that banks have lobbied heavily against (as well as things like the Consumer Protection Agency, for the same reason, margins). Having said that, there are a lot much more monopolistic companies with lower risk and much more stable margins (e.g. Wallmart).

@ChaosEngine

i guess i was not clear.
so let me clarify.

i was not defending an artists right to discriminate on the basis of:sexual orientation,gender,race,class etc etc.

i WAS,however,defending an artists right to refuse a commission on their own personal grounds (whatever those might be) and they could do it without making a big deal about it.no need to be specific WHY you refused the commission.just that you wont be able to do the job to the best of your ability and that maybe joe-artist down the street could serve you better.

so you may find darkhands analogy trite and contrived but the basic heart of his comment is true.if his heart aint in it you are gonna get crap as a result.

being an artist for hire is nothing like owning a bagel shop or selling t-shirts.

if i aint feeling it...
i aint doing it.

if you want to project that i refuse because you are gay,or because their is a vagina involved..well..thats on you.
my reasons are my own.
i may share those reasons with you,i may not but i have that right to refuse the commission.

and the artists who DOES share a reason of homophobia or sexism is just dumb and probably not worth hiring anyways.

as for calling out artists who "whore" themselves.
i wasnt thinking of artists who accept money for the work they do.we all have to eat brother and if i used your example,each and every one of us are whores in one capacity or another.

i was actually thinking of the artists who lend their pen,brush,camera and instrument to create propaganda videos,commercials etc etc.

basically anyone who would sell their integrity for a buck.

No dental insurance (family is lending /giving me the money) but I do have state medicaid(ins). My understanding is that if i get hit by a car im good to go but when it comes to fixing my teeth no such luck.

Thanks mate, very nice comment of you.

Always like to hear different viewpoints, makes me consider ideas I hadn't and also bulk up my own point of view, so all good

I suppose they're all specific specialities of the broader business field, I would also add accounting but they are very broadly interrelated. For example in bank lending decisions, discounted cash flow estimations (finance) which are reliant on income statement and balance sheet information are just as important as IS/BS audit expertise (accounting) which assesses the credibility of their reporting. This is especially true for smaller, privately owned entities (who obviously can't rely on public equity, so are generally bank reliant). Large publicly listed companies have much more stringent auditing requirements already, and public disclosure means that they are highly open to scrutiny.

Economics beyond 101 basics is generally is more of an academic niche. The macroeconomic side looking at large scale GDP, inflation, employment etc., is relied upon in government, treasuries and policy think tanks. Large listed companies would certainly have a dedicated in-house team for consultations. Medium sized companies might contract dedicated industry research consultant firms, but outside of that their use is quite limited.

The microeconomic side is industry specific looking at competitive behaviour inter-firm, with suppliers and customers. It's generally a more wishy washy field which introduces some amateur psychology via behavioural economics and game theory. It's more of an academic field really. I can imagine large multinationals with few competitors employing them or hiring consultants. We have a near duopoly here in supermarkets and I can see them using microeconomic theory in pricing decisions for example.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/No-Sleep-Til-Brooklyn-Beastie-Boys-1986

I love this tune - I know it by heart - or at least know by heart how I though the lyrics went when I listened to it as a kid.



Bedtime boys!
Oh mom!

Now hey there people, won't you lend an ear?
'cause I've a story to tell and I'm telling it here
I was born in a town in the great UK
From a baby to a boy to a man today
And I'm a musical man, and I'm a man of verse
But I've got a little problem and it's getting worse

Well my life was so well planned
Survivin' and a-jivin' in a f-f-funk band
'cause rappin', it's my, bread and butter
But it's hard to rap when you're born with a st-st-st, st, st-st, st,
st-t, st-t, stutter!

Well no-one's ever seen what I mean
From the age of n-n-n-n-n-n-thirteen
We've all been caught in a m-m-mouth trap
So join with us and do the st-st-st-st-st-st-st-stutter rap

Well it was '82 when I joined the boys
And I was hip, and I was cool, but now I've lost my poise
The kids, our fans, are starting to doubt
When you open your mouth and nothing comes out
(..)

And it breaks my heart that we're not on the chart
'cause the record's nearly over when the vocals start
And I'm down and out, and I'm down on my luck
And I'm livin' on my own and I'm dying for a fr-riend to say "You're great!" But I'm under the hammer
'cause all I seem to do is s-s-s-stee-
(..)
Come on man!
(..)
s-s-s-st-stammer!

Well no-one's ever seen what I mean
From the age of n-n-n-n-n-n-thirteen
We've all been caught in a m-m-mouth trap
So join with us and do the st-st-st-st-st-st-st-stutter rap

Neighbours..

Well interviewers turn away
Who wants to be covered with spray?
Talkin' to me for more than an hour
Is equivalent to an April shower
It's tough! Tough! Tougher than tough!
It's worse than Benny Hill and that's bad enough!
Something must be wrong with your vocal technique
When the twelve inch mix goes on for a week

I was rappin' in my club the other night
When nothin' I said was comin' out right
The crowd got angry, and this one man
He was gonna throw a bottle
He was gonna chuck a can, chuck a can, chuck a, chuck a, chuck a,
chuck a

Well no-one's ever seen what I mean
From the age of n-n-n-n-n-n-thirteen
We've all been caught in a m-m-mouth trap
So join with us and do the st-st-st-st-st-st-st-stutter rap

N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-NO, NEED, FOR SHOUTING!

W-w-w-w-why's that then?

Well, you'll wake Mr Whittaker at number thirty-two

Besides, it's not very good for the voice

(An amplifier or similar shorts out)

Uuhhh!

That's a bit harsh isn't it?

NO, SLEEP, 'TIL BEDTIME!

Talking of which - it's ten-thirty already!

Is it? Ooooh!

What time do they stay up 'til in America?

(I mean)

Oh, very late. Sometimes quarter to eleven

(Ahhhh)

Well actually I've heard in New York they sometimes even stay up 'til midnight

No! No wonder they do all that shouting

(I mean)

Yes, they must be very snappy and irritable

That's right

(Ahhhh)

Do you know, I heard a story that those Toastie Boys stayed up 'til
quarter past twelve!

Really? Well that's just silly!

They're just gonna get burnt out

Burnt out!

Well no-one's ever seen what I mean
From the age of n-n-n-n-n-n-thirteen
We've all been caught in a m-m-mouth trap
So join with us and do the st-st-st-st-st-st-st-stutter rap

Well no-one's ever seen what I mean
From the age of n-n-n-n-n-n-thirteen
We've all been caught in a m-m-mouth trap
So join with us and do the st-st-st-st-st-st-st-stutter rap

Well no-one's ever seen what I mean
From the age of n-n-n-n-n-n-thirteen...

(Fades out)

Huh? Willfully misunderstanding what exactly? If you disagree that this is a capitalism/profit issue, not a 'liberals hate education' issue, disagree (and be specific and factual, not just insulting and dismissive), or are you trying to say this IS what 'liberal' educators want? You were quite vague (I think intentionally).
When you simply dismiss anyone that disagrees with you by claiming they willfully misunderstand, that simply shows you don't really have a leg to stand on and are just bitching and name calling, not making a factual argument.
There's no willful misunderstanding here, I honestly think it's an issue that business usually does the absolute minimum possible to get paid, just like in this class. That goes double for business that's working for the 'government'. That has nothing to do with 'liberals' or 'conservatives'...they both support business and both hire businesses to do work for the government. Attempting to say it is a 'liberal' cause (with no information to back you up) seems like the normal BS MO of 'conservatives' that want to blame any fault on 'liberals' and any good on 'conservatives'...I find that MO to be infantile, and I'll just disagree. I don't see this as political, some people see everything as a political stance to take....I try to avoid them.
Explain how that's wrong please, or go comb your merkin in silence....or lend it to a hairless Asian and have them explain.
Exactly what "truth" hurts? Your "truth" that my position (that business only does what it has to in order to get paid) is somehow the cause of the lack of education in America? Didn't hurt me, I simply disagree, think that you're wrong, and note that you've said nothing to even attempt to make me think otherwise, only tried to belittle me. That's the MO of someone who knows they already lost the argument before it began.
Truth is an idea in the mind of a crazy person...but you don't need to know the "truth" in order to not lie.

In theory, the player performing the break could pot a red and then continue on that break, but that would be extremely unlikely and probably a very bad move. At no point in snooker do you get two shots in one turn, not even on the break.

The break shot requires that the player hits a red ball first. Since the pink is at the top of the rack (the triangle of balls), this prevents the player from breaking like you would in a game of 8 or 9-ball. Therefore, you are unlikely to get a red ball to move with enough momentum to make it to a pocket. And if you did manage to do that, everything on the table would be scrambled to hell which does not lend itself to easy, predictable shots or high scores (following the red-black-red-black pattern).

So, instead, in snooker the perfect break sees the cue ball striking one of the bottom corner balls, sending it in to the bottom cushion with the momentum moving along the back line of balls sending the other corner ball into the side cushion. Ideally, both of those balls will return very close to their starting position with the rack essentially undisturbed. At the same time, you want the cue ball to move around the table and come to rest either against the top cushion (as far away from the reds as possible) or hidden behind the green, brown, or yellow ball.

TLDR: No, breaks in snooker are defensive in nature.

Sir...lower than low and you can't tell the real from unreal-I am a musician and a friend to humanity and all you want from me is to see me burn-You are sadly mistaken in your assumptions and have dealt me a personal disservice,

I mean you no personal ill-will and have seen this before from other abusers of this site.

Cut and paste and declare the righteous of humanity unworthy based on nothing but your own delusional fantasies of right and wrong.

I have no history here of anything but calling shit when I see it and you sir, are THE epitome of the dregs of the worst of humankind.

You place yourself in a false position of a 'holier than thou' saint and read into my jovial and playful banter nothing but hatred and an unforgiving soul, some vile pervert....I assure you, I am so very far from some pedophile, no user of women, on the contrary-You have no idea the depths to which your own delusion has brought you and the entire site in declaring me in your self-righteousness some petty piece of human garbage as to accuse me of such a thing.

There are more than a few people here who can attest to my kindness and sincerity towards the women of this place, on YT when so many complete douchebags offer-up their vile words to young people trying to interpret music and are derided by those who hate themselves so much that they can only criticize, berate, and belittle the efforts of sincere people trying to share their love for music and humanity with the world only to have idiots and assholes insult their efforts.

My "request" to you was a joke directed at your persona here of enforcer, of resident cop hell-bent on finding any way possible to undermine anyone who comes here as a new user under the guise of following protocol-I have treated you as a friend and equal always and now....with evil intent and a sincere and violent hatred for me as a person you would have me thrown to wolves.

I had absolutely no indication that someone would or could, stoop as low on this site but as it is with people who don't even know who or what they themselves are, I am once again surprised and bewildered at the depths to which humanity can sink, when all is exhausted but ego and self-loathing.

If you would care to post this to the sift-talk arena and have tenured and long-time users here who know me, who trust me to be who and what I say I am I would be honored to show you and the entire site, even if it mean a permanent ban from this site of myself, just how completely wrong you are in your knee-jerk assumptions and delusional accusations.

I can have at least 3 adult, female users of this site who I and the community trust to be straight-up moral and ethical and righteous attest to my honesty and to a friendship that endures on and off this site.

I have no reservations about anything I have said or done here to foster love and community and it is YOUR delusional self-righteous anger and self-hate that has brought you to your retarded and vile accusation and assumption.

I agree with you one one thing, that this particular issue need not be a private matter but one that the entire site's users need see.

SO here we are once again, letting the community of users here let a few delusionals decide the fate of a sincere human being.

SO be it, I should have known better than to walk bearing my heart and soul into a small den of feral creatures and expect them to be able to see beauty and a sincere love for all of humanity.

Your accusations again, are unfounded and completely left of field, and you are dead-wrong in assuming that I am some perverted, hind-brained animal that would take advantage of a complete stranger.

That poor girl who sang that Beatle's tune and was banned had a lovely voice and whoever posted her video here I am sure, had no intention of doing anything but promoting her confidence and and sincere love for the music she was trying to share with the world.


I was going to go to her you tube page and apologize on behalf of myself and the site for her offering having been dashed-to-bits on the rocks of petty rules and a declaration of her unworthiness through some crap system of votes and regulations.

I feel very, very sorry and pity the type of person who can't discern the truth from a lie or see someone for what they are in their essence.

All the power-points I garner from maintaining the site's embeds, have you noticed??
I give them away to the underdogs, to the talented sifters who find beauty and joy in what they offer to the community. My usual criteria is to promote ignored offerings or to promote when I read a description in an embed of how much they personally enjoyed a video or that it touched them in an emotional way lending to joy or happiness. I resurrect dead videos in order to immediately give points and another chance to people with a view to raiding their spirits and status on this site.

I tend to promote music quite a bot and to DOWN-VOTE embeds people place here in order to insult another's ideologies or philosophies OR, when i see an inordinate amount of embed form a user that showcase human-tragedy for the sake of entertainment .

I care about life and truth my friend, not fantasy, death, pain, or lies with a view to self-promotion.

You are dead wrong in your assessment of my character, and I seek to prove you so before this entire community or be run off this site for the very last time.

I am keeping a copy of this response to my joking message directed again, at your joy in watching users get banned of self-linking which I posted to you with a view to pointing-out a character flaw, so that you won't twist my words and use them to satisfy your personal mission to see me gone form here.